What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
47 Comments
- sicc, on 10/11/2007, -2/+30The last thing I want is my computer not letting me do certain things. Not to mention cheating isnt something someone does by 'accident'- They want to cheat. Using this will just make cheaters go buy other peoples mobos. It would be more understandable if they were doing it to stop trojans or virii, but a cheat is something someone will willingly install, which means that the cheats will likely bypass this anyways.
- Zanick, on 10/11/2007, -0/+22Great, now how the hell can I beat anyone from Korea in Starcraft?
- NuclearBlast, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16This already exists with Punkbuster. Although I see the value of competition in this market (currently dominated by Punkbuster), one can't help but feel a little edgy about stuff like this.
I hate cheaters, but there are worse things out there than a 15 year old killing me repeatedly in Counter-Strike. I'd rather be owned by cheaters than have my privacy chipped away. - RoroCo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Wait... Since when does online cheating responsibilities fall to anyone but the developers of the actual game. If they would just write clearer code, than cheating can be limited.
- MadEnvoy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11I don't cheat but I would buy any other mobo before I spend my cash on this.
P.S. The new Digg comment feature? sucks. - OKeric, on 05/12/2008, -0/+8I don't understand why the anti-cheaters software can't be implemented on the server instead of on the client's computer. All the data is being fed to the server anyway, so why not analyze it there and avoid screwing with peoples' computers.
- Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Yeah. It's just like the Palladium and TCPA stuff. Unless you get a lot of manufacturers onboard (or government regulation), it will generally be cheaper to make not-so-restricted stuff which those so-inclined will use.
- colincornaby, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6What's to prevent the client computer from sending the server false data?
- Krovvy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Sure, that would be fine, if the cheater wasn't ruining other's experiences.
It takes the developers focus from fixing bugs and adding gameplay elements to catching cheaters. Cheaters destroy other players experiences, even to the point of destroying the community entirely. I don't understand why people feel they have the "right" to cheat when they're clearly breaking rules, and hurting others. Do you think people should have the right to steal and physically harm others?
Anyway, yes most likely it will not work well and probably will be abandoned, eventually. - XxUNDEROATHxX, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I am a CAL-M BF2 and soon-to-be ETQW player, and this kind of technology would be really effective in matches and such. From what i read, it sounds like only one player would have to run the software, and the software would scan all the packets to make sure everything was legit. The whole part about the server banning people is only optional in competition. If a player is found cheating in competition, they receive a ban (temp/perm depending on league)...
If intel could pair up with CAL in this, CAL is working on an ACS at the moment that does something similar to this.. - Rabid_Llama, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4It sounds like it CAN be implemented on the server, but this demo software is set up to run on a client so that you can play with it on any server you want to. This is a demo to show functionality, meaning no server admin is gonna install it.
Also, colincornaby, you can't send "false data" to the server, because then the server's not gonna understand what you're saying. The data you send is the data you send, and the only question is whether it's generated by a human player moving the mouse, or by an aimbot doing it for him. I imagine this software probably looks for "impossible" series of data, such as values changing much too fast (instant turn-arounds from aimbots) or values not changing enough (perfect, unwavering aim, again from aimbots). If my guess is right, this will be a minor inconvenience at most for hackers. But, I'm just guessing at their methods. - tpaine, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I couldn't agree more. As soon as punk buster came out for CS there was a "punk buster buster" for cheaters. It's like the RIAA trying to stop downloading by attacking the symptoms instead of the problem. With games like Counter-Strike and Battlefield we have a game architecture that is heavily reliant upon the client machine processing critical collision calculations which allows cheaters to modify their client to do whatever they want. This makes for more lag but it allows them to use lighter servers.
A game like Tribes 2, on the other hand, relies on the client only for displaying information and all collision calculations are made by the server itself. Now tribes 2 had it's cheats still, but nothing on the scale of the other games I've mentioned. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I would probably trust anything Intel gave me to install, versus the random .exe hacks for games.
***** em, CounterStrike was so much ***** fun until cheating came around. - thegoodsteer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Agreed, and with the quad-core servers now-a-days, I am sure anti-cheating technology would use up that much CPU resources anyways...
- dinostabOMG, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Wait... I see comments here about Palladium and trusted computing, but how is what the article suggests any different from concepts like Punkbuster?
- Krovvy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2This isn't a "social" problem that could be fixed with user reports and human implemented bans. Besides the massive amount of employees, server bandwidth, and utterly wasted resources, there would be many false positives. For example in some gaming leagues people have been banned for "cheating" who were clearly not or later "proved" themselves in large LAN tournaments or other leagues with better anti-cheat and less corruption.
- zyl0x, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I can understand if they couple this with the ability for servers to filter out players not using the system. Kind of like a software Punkbuster. You can disable it if you want, but non-cheaters can feel safe playing on a cheat-free server.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Why.... it would work of course!
- meruru, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3If it worked right (no lag, actually did what it was supposed to) I would be all for it. Online gaming would be greatly improved if you could guarantee that everyone was on an even playing field.
- gerphimum, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2We're not all professional gamers. Some folks want to just play some Counter Forces after work or during the weekends without getting wrecked on by a blatant hacker. Pubs aren't fun anymore because of that, and if that's all you play, it will definitely frustrate you enough to 'quit' in console.
That said, I believe folks who own pubs should do a better job keeping admins in the server. Also the 'vote' command (in HL mods) is entirely too scarcely used. I wish there was a way to educate the pub-only crowd about voting someone out of the server. - Agares, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2From what I gather this is a software solution not a hardware one so it could be implemented regardless of mobo manufacturer. I hope it turns out and I am glad there is another player in the anti-cheat world to give PB some competition because they seem to be resting on their laurels lately.
- VocalFX, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4It will be useless, good cheaters always have ways to get around anything.
- rowlodge, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2this is what hackers are for, to get around that. you probably have to own your own server or host a game to make a dent in cheating.
- meruru, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I don't see how this would be a privacy issue. The software would monitor the data being set to the server. It wouldn't require any addition information that the server/admins wouldn't already have access to.
- Zopmaz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Too bad they can't.
- scabbers, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Terrible, rambling no-content blah blah ***** article buried.
- fallen1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Who in their right mind would install hardware or software into their computers from a company which has demonstrated several ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing_Group ) times ( http://www.cdt.org/privacy/issues/pentium3/ ) that they want to be able to track you and control you - or rather your hardware and software?
I see this little bauble from Intel as nothing more than another step onto the road of so-called "Trusted Computing" and, personally and professionally, I would have nothing to do with it. I don't trust Google of the "do no evil" mindset with my search data all the time and I sure as hell would not trust Intel to secure my game server. Not even with the specs of the hardware or software solution open for all to see. This has infringing on personal rights and freedoms written all over it. Whether Intel does it by themselves (absolute power corrupts absolutely) or under the auspices of the United States government wishing to "crack down on those gaming terrorists" it WILL happen that they abuse the technology. - Rabid_Llama, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1What, exactly, would this hardware do? It's easy enough to say "it should be in hardware," but you have to get over the difficulty of how to detect the cheating before you can start working on how to prevent people from circumventing that detection.
- NuclearBlast, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I don't have a problem with the way it is sniffing out cheaters. I have a problem with the way it is implemented. There's no choice at all. With Punkbuster, you can at least not play on servers that use it and never download it. What I inferred from this article (and several others about this topic) is that there would be no way to disable the software. That kind of inflexibility in what is on a person's computer is the same thing people scream at Microsoft about, so I would be surprised if there was no outrage over this in the long run.
- matt.rubin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Is it called steam? I mean steam does a great job,
- Lane, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1who uses an intel motherboard anyway? obviously this isnt something implemented on the cpu so unless they want to make it server side this is pointless. now what would be useful is if The OS your running could only allow needed processes to be run in the background when say your fav fps is on. That would be the most effective anti-cheat.
- JAVandiver, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Anyway some of the time the most rampant cheating is done by the admins, especially with regards to BF2!
- lopla, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The author of that article is obviously pissed off his hax will not work soon.
- ferrofluid, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Existing anit-cheat software such as Punkbuster does the decision making sever side, which is graphics free and easier to do.
Lumping the hard bit onto clients would just slow down the players, Punkbuster client side is LEAN and strictly controlled by the server and does local md5 calcs (of critical game files and some system files) and submissions to server, not much else. - ferrofluid, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1A symptom of a badly designed game.
Trouble is too many games are flashy with eye candy, but the devs dont think too hard about sensible game and net code. - ferrofluid, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The various Battlefield games ALL use server side ballistic, movement, damage effect calculations, ever been on a server when it gets 'paused' instant freeze time.
All the client software does is display your view, play the sounds, and process inputs. - Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Except in certain limited cases (e.g. obvious aimbots, clear game engine exploits) this is an attempt to solve a problem with technology, when a social solution may work better. Having a robust and tested system for reporting suspicions, appeals, recording demos, etc. goes a long way to clearing up things where developing a technical silver bullet would be unfeasible.
- linksus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Sounds like a plan.. However wouldnt it just be better to close the holes in games thatcause this entire problem....
Back in the day, Quake1 / Quake2 we had some anti cheat scripts people would run to prove they dont cheat..
the reason being people said ohh servers aint powerful enuf and there isnt enuf bandwidth to countermeasure this, Well today we have plenty powerful machines ( Ok not so with newer games ) however we have plently of bandwidth.. Why dont they just code correctly! Stop hacks and build anti hack into games ( With the option to turn it off , Like with PB ) - Yuusaku, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I don't know what Intel's plans are. Hopefully they come up with something that actually works. I was simply responding to those people citing privacy issues.
- AdHaR, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0the n00bs with their f**kin hacks...
- Topher06, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Its about online cheating, which is what I agree with. People are paying money to play in an online environment, they don't want some d*ckhead that put God mod on to come running in and blasting everything in site and generally making the online gameplay no fun.
I don't think they intend to force cheats not to work for single player gaming, I would object to something that prevented god mode for people that want to get past a difficult level in a single player game, you know so they can get past it and move on. But in online environments, its always a pain when some jerk somes online with an obvious cheat ruining your enjoyment.
For the most part, though, most online system already have pretty agressive anti-cheat systems in place, I don't see why Inten needs to add something to your computer to enhance the system. This is going to be a fiasco like the unique CPU identifier issue. - GotMex, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Annnnnd cue the conspiracy theories of how the government pays Intel to monitor our gaming behavior.
- blorc, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1This is a really bad idea. The Internet is for practice. Sometimes you're going to get suckered by a cheater. It happens. If you're playing a public server, then choose one that has regular and intelligent admins, or just move to a different pub. If you're playing in leagues, dispute. If that doesn't work, suck it up and move on. Besides, I think we all know the best way to avoid cheating: do it on LAN.
Gamers don't need Intel to stop cheating. I would not buy Intel hardware if it was implemented into hardware. It's that simple. - Yuusaku, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0I believe a hardware solution could help. Software can always be cracked, but hardware is usually much harder to crack. It would be a great benefit if this type of solution were to become widespread so that game developers can rely on it to effectively block those who cheat. Finally, the whole "Big Brother" argument doesn't hold water with me. Nobody has to store any information about you in order for that to work. In fact, PunkBuster stores more info about you than a hardware solution would.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0HALO 3 Beta comes to mind !! ............I head shot a guy 4 times and he never went down, only to later come around and shot me while i blasted him at point blank range numerous times and all he does is elbow me for the kill !! This wasn't a Beta issue it was a CHEAT
- NinjaBoy, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2I personally dont see what the problem is. Just click the "Expand tree" button and its like the old digg system.
- Typhoon2009, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2I'm sure Intel just loves reading everyone's comments on Digg :rolleyes:
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is